The use of capitals in the transliteration of Sumerian has to do with how the word was written. According to AncientScripts.com, for instance, capitals are used for transcribing logograms, whereas regular letters are used for syllabograms.

It's got little to do with the fact that Sumerian was agglutinative.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

And?
I'm certain you can find at least one scientific institute in Helsinki as well...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Sorry all; I'm quite busy as of late and haven't been able to keep up, but in an effort to maintain some semblance with astronomy...

I apologize, Fram, but I think our respective understanding of "literally" in regards to the Enuma Elish differ.

Consider:

Sun = Apsu "one who exists from the beginning, primordial"
Mercury = Mummu, counselor and emissary of Apsu
Venus = Lahamu "lady of battles"
Mars = Lahmu "deity of war"
?? = Tiamat "maiden who gave life" (split to become "heaven and earth")
Asteroid Belt = "hammered bracelet" after the celestial battle, renamed "heaven" in the OT
Jupiter = Kishar "foremost of firm lands"
Saturn = Anshar "foremost of the heavens"
Pluto = Gaga, counselor and emissary of Anshar (given his own "destiny" or "orbit" by Marduk / Nibiru
Uranus = Anu, he of the heavens
Neptune = Nudimmud (EA) "artful creator"

BUT, before rereading the Enuma Elish with these in mind, be sure to gain some insight into The Astronomy of Babylon.

A couple of helpful snippets:

"A perusal of nearly any ancient pantheon reveals the obvious: At leastsome of the gods, often the most important ones, are objects in the sky.The metaphoric reasons are not difficult to understand. The regular motionsof celestial objects made them agents of order that helped give meaningto the world below; endless repetition of their appearances and disappearances suggested immortality; their light commanded attention and connoted power.And being in the sky, with such a perspective on earth below, it was onlynatural to assume that the gods must know all because they could see all:To see the world, one's eyes must be in heaven.
Although particular gods may differ in terms of the resources they arebelieved to control, control is the attribute they share. What they control,and how they do it, determines exactly what sorts of gods they are. Celestialgods control the passage of time by marking it and measuring it. They controldirection and space through the locations of their comings and goings.As masters of time and space, they move the world. They make it change.Day changes into night. Winter melts into spring. Rivers flood and fall.Grain sprouts, grows, and ripens. In these cycles of the world and in ourdaily lives we see patterened change, and it is driven by the sky."

"In very earliest time the Greeks and the Romans do not seem to have differentiatedthe planets. Writing in the fourth century BC, the Greek philosopher Platodescribed the five "wanderers" as gods and mentioned that the practiceof associating them with specific Olympian gods was introduced by foreigners.The foreigners probably came from either Egypt or Mesopotamia. The latteris the more likely source since the attributes and characteristics of Babylonianplanetary gods parallel those of the Greek gods, while the early Egyptianrepresentations of planets do not."

"Jupiter's course through the sky, Marduk decides, will guide the starsand planets. This may seem like an odd choice to make. The constant sun,perhaps, would define things better. But Jupiter's path through the skyfollows the ecliptic, the annual path of the sun, more closely than theother planets known to the ancients. Also, Jupiter's configurations inthe stars repeat themselves almost exactly every 12 years. For example,Jupiter will come into opposition (that is, be opposite the sun in thesky) 12 times in a span of time just five days longer than 12 years, andthe last opposition will occur among the same stars as the first.

These aspects of Jupiter's movement, combined with its brilliance amongthe stars of the nighttime sky, probably influenced early astronomers touse the planet as a reference, a function reflected, it seems, in the myth.There are uncertainties, however. The actual name for the planet used in the text is Nebiru."

I must add here that I think the identification of Marduk / Nebiru with Jupiter is in err. It should be clear that Marduk was not one of the "primordial" gods in the creation epic. He was a later "god" on earth, an Anunnaki. His usurpation of all the attributes of the "gods of heaven and earth" is what, in my mind, started monotheism, and began to blur the lines between astronomical texts dealing with the "celestial gods" and those dealing with the physically present "gods" on earth.
Anyway...
What the Enuma Elish describes then is that a chaotic early solar system consisting of a sun, its "emissary" and a "monstrous" body further out were the beginning. Then in 3 pairs, other "primordial gods" were born of them. Their "ways were troublesome" fittingly describes an early system having bodies with erratic orbits in my mind. An "avenger" from "the deep" - outside our solar system, is lured in, "begotten" by Nudimmud (Neptune) and set on course for a "celestial battle" which results in the creation of Heaven and Earth. This perturber then goes on to establish the "destinies" and "ways of heaven" - orbits - of all the other gods and is proclaimed as "Lord of Hosts"(to use an outdated biblical phrase derived from mesopotamia) among them. So, is the planet called Nebiru (not Jupiter), a pertuber body that actually established the order we see in our solar system?
Various astronomical observations suggest to me that this might well be the case.

As an aside: Understanding how intermingled the astronomy and religion/mythology of the ancients is, illuminates what the notion of the return of "the Lord" really means. :wink:

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Standard cosmology, of course, assumes that the orbits of the planets in our Solar System have been stable for millions of years. The Nebula hypothesis and all that.

Many ancient testimonies, however, seem to indicate otherwise. The trouble is that while ancient cultures record things very literally, they also superimpose their interpretation of events. They saw the planets as Gods, and saw the movement of planets as the Battles of Gods during periods of planetary upheaval.

Unfortunately, mainstream science misunderstands ancient testimony, dismissing it as ignorant superstition, when in reality it is simply a literal translation of what was seen.

Indeed, most religion/mythology probably has astronomical origins. The 25th of the 12th month, for example, occurs in many religions as an important birthday. We are all aware of its astronomical significance.

I'm not sure about Nibiru being the planetary perturber, however.

No problem that you can not always answer immediately, there is no urgency involved.
But A.DIM, no matter what you say, you don't read the Enuma Elish literally, you make an interpretation, leaving out all the humanlike / godlike behaviour described in the text, unless it fits your idea of how the Solar Sytem has developed.
Your planets are speaking, and you have no explanation for that as a literal astronomical text.
And remember: all planets are gods doesn't mean that all gods are planets.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Umm, a literal translation of what was seen? Who has seen the battle of Tiamat? There were no humans yet, then, so they are retelling what was told them. But for some reason, they could not just retell it or write it down correctly, but they made a fanciful story of it.
Or are you referring to other periods of planetary upheaval when there were already humans around to watch and record it? Interesting...

And what is the astronomical significance of 25/12? Be careful, don't only use 25/12 in our reckoning (although I would love an explanation for that as well), but also in Russia, China, India, whatever. Oops, that's not the same day... #-o

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Isn't 21/12 the important one :wink:

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

DA, you never loose an opportunity to belittle someone you dont agree with. isnt that right?

V-GER asked the following: "Why EN.KI.DU instead of Enkidu?"

i answered the following: "sumerian is an agglutinative language and a word is sometimes formed by other compound words to derive a meaning. it could also be spelled EN-KI-DU, either way it would be correct."

my impression from V-GER question was that he did not understood why i separated the word in its compound elements and NOT why i've written it in capitals. either way its scholarly correct to write Enkidu as en-ki-du, the "du" represented by du10 or dùg. which is its corresponding symbol.

en-ki is the god Enki, dùg means creation. therefore en-ki-du means something like the creature made by EN.KI.

here's a small portion from "Gilgamesh and Aga":

"Only Enkidu went out through the city gate. Gilgamec leaned out over the rampart. Looking up, Aga saw him: Slave, is that man your king?
That man is indeed my king."

and its sumerian text:

en-ki-du10 abul-la dili ba-ra-ed2
dgilgamec2 bad3-da gu2-na im-ma-an-la2

so, what i've stated before is correct, and the "Gilgamesh and Aga" text also answers the other doubt V-GER had about the fact that EN.KI.DU was at the command of Gilgamesh.

mr. DA you should really temper your mood when addressing my person because such belittling attitudes are neither deserved by me nor very flattering for you.

yes, sorry. i was in transit of searching this subject when work showed up, so i only had the time to post this. not very informative i know.

that is an interesting statement, it has a Velikovskian ring to it. which periods of planetary upheaval do you have in mind, soupdragon?

No problem, happens to all of us. Please let us know if you find something more!

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

can you be a little more specific? i dont remember anything being said that attributed to the "gods" violated known science.

wouldnt an orbital space station look just like an ordinary star in the sky, albeit probably bigger?

theoretically, one could trace the archetype struggle between good and evil on most ancient religions to the Sumerian myths of the fight between EN.KI and EN.LIL for the primacy of Earth. for example, the dual personality of the Biblical god: JEHOVA and YAHEW

maybe such evidence exists but is either mistakingly stored in museums, in private collections or simply misplaced. case in point: Fuente Magna

Yes, I think Velikovsky was hitting on something, although catastrophism has moved on a long was since then. It also ties in nicely with the emerging Plasma Universe paradigm. I am well aware that these ideas are still considered eccentric at best, and I really can't be bothered to discuss them in detail right now.

My point is that ancient testimony shouldn't be dismissed too lightly. There are some remarkable parallels from across the globe when one cares to look.

I would also point out that we will very likely be laughing at clumsy kludges like Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the future....

Paraphrasing: I say whatever I want, but I won't answer any questions about it.
I presume you're not surprised when you get ignored with that attitude?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Maybe you're thinking of an excellent Rush album? :wink:

The ancients recognized that, from an earthcentric perspective, The Sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21/22, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days, and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that 'God's Sun' had 'died' for three days and was 'born again' on December 25th ... The ancients obviously recognising the importance of the Sun.

Sun worship is often touted as the origin of many religions. For example:

Horus of Egypt
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men, blah, blah

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

Jesus, Christianity, etc, etc.

I have discussed these things in some depth within other threads on this BB, on many occasions...

Please excuse me if I don't want to get drawn in again right now.

Outcast wrote:
Your impression was correct and the answer very thorough thank you.

Btw, I assume everyone's read the BA's take on Sumerian astronomy(ok more PX centered but relevant) http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...html#sumerians

THAT's funny, V-GER.

A Sumerian scholar used to refute Sitchin while at the same time promoting his own ideas about interdimensional beings being the "gods" of the ancients. Moreover, and in Heiser's own words, only "a few certain terms" are all that differentiates Heiser from Sitchin in their interpretations of mesopotamian / hebrew texts.

For this reason, I've suggested before that the BA ought to reconsider using Heiser, but...

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Ah, so you mean 25th december in our reckoning, not the 25th of the 12th month in their reckoning. Huge difference!
And your examples are all interrelated, as Christianity is well-known for taking over aspects of other religions, like dates, rituals, and sacred places.
Whatever, the conclusion remains: were the gods cosmonauts? No, they weren't. They were celestial bodies at first (with the Sun first and foremost), and when they ran out of those, they just made them up.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Then don't start it, and keep those things to those other threads. There are enough topics in here as it is already.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

A.DIM wrote:
I won't go into this Sitchin-Heiser feud and my comment about the BA's article wasn't meant as smart-ar*ed. I was rather referring to this point:" But ignoring that, there are still two biggies. Sitchin claims that the picture shows Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. But the Sumerians didn't have telescopes, and therefore could only have known of them if aliens told them about their existence. But if aliens told them about those planets, why not about the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, or Saturn's rings?" This is why I'm sceptical of this interpretation:

I have a feeling of déjà vu... :wink:

Your attack on Heiser is ad hominem, and you severely understate the differences between his interpretations and Sitchin's.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Yes, and catastrophism is by no means dead (pun intended).

I very much agree, and as I've pointed out many times before, figuring out which texts are dealing with the celestial "gods" - the sun, moon, planets et al - and which are dealing with "those from heaven to earth came" - the physically present "gods" - is most challenging, but doable.


Nor am I sure about it, but IMHO, current astronomy appears to support such a description of the formation of our solar system.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Well thanks, Fram.

You not only seem to have totally ignored my "helpful snippets" above, but the rest of the babylonian astronomy page as a whole.
I'll try again: As I've said, some texts are astronomical texts and to read them "literally" as such is to remove the human attributes. Some texts are those describing the activities of the physically present beings on earth and to read them "literally"... well, that part should be clear.

I think you know what I mean now?

No kidding? :-?

I'll repeat: While doable, understanding the intricacies of myth/religion and astronomy, separating the "earthly gods" from the "celestial gods," is most challenging, but certainly takes more than superficial understanding of the materials.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I understand now, sorry. You made no mention to which post(s) "btw," you were "sceptical."

But I wouldn't presuppose a remark like "why not other moons and rings?" is enough of an examination of the material to dismiss the "aliens." The Enuma Elish describes the primordial celestial "gods" present for the "celestial battle" between Nibiru & Tiamat that brought about "heaven and earth," the main "players" so to speak.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I didn't attack Heiser, DisInfo. Are saying that it is ok for "skeptics" around here to make similar remarks about the various "woowoos" out there, and yet I can't make a most pertinent point likewise? :-?

Having "deja vu" myself, I realized that the "rewrite" issue was made very clear to you before, using several references. And yet only a few pages ago, your playing semantics helped derail the discussion.
And here again.
I laid out very clearly, more than once, how little Sitchin's and Heiser's interpretations of those "few certain words" are. So how do I "severely understate the differences?"

Now, it appears that either you'll continue to ignore any points made and seemingly spread "disinfo," or ..... ?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

You are trying to suggest that Heiser's opinion on Sitchin's translations is worth nothing, because Heiser has some weird ideas about other issues, aren't you?
That's an ad hominem. He may be completely wrong about other issues, and still be right about this one.
Now, I won't deny that I would prefer a... erm... more orthodox source. But since these two are the only ones we have, I'll pick Heiser over Sitchin, since he at least actually has some expertise on ancient Mesopotamian languages.

I was not convinced by the arguments that you and Outcast put forth. I made that quite clear in that other thread.

"How little the interpretations are"? What does that mean?...

Can we drop that silly little pun with my username? :-?
I mean, it isn't even funny, and I think you're a bit old for that kind of retort.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

I'm not "trying to suggest" anything. I'm only making sure the less informed (or "disnformed") understand who Heiser is, and that his ideas aren't really that removed from Sitchin's.

THAT's laughable, Disinfo! =D>
Were I to make such a statement, I'd be pounced on in the spirit of debunkery.

What's interesting is that the study of Economics takes one all the way back to Sumer, and the many thousands of texts dealing with Trade and such. Some university level Economics studies certainly entail examining, reading, cuneiform. Combine this with actually speaking Hebrew, rather than being taught in american univerisities, and understanding other semitic tongues.... well, I understand why you "pick" Heiser.
:wink:

Yes, and I think I've shown how you're not really interested in being "convinced." Try this: Contact Univerisity of Chicago's Oriental Institute, an authority on the matter, and find out for yourself.
Otherwise, I'm convinced that you too are only here to "debunk" something.

Oh sorry, rapid typing...
with tangent:
Brings to mind Bukowski's "Play the piano like a percussion instrument until the fingers begin to bleed a bit."

OT: How little their interpretations actually differ, is what I meant.

Again, sorry, but all I have to go on is what I read here.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I had read your post and the link you provided, but we stay with the fact that your definition of literal is hugely different from mine. We perhaps better let that rest for now...
What about my remarks about Sitchin's website? Why would I read (let alone believe) the books from someone who makes that many scientific mistakes in a few pages?

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Fine, then. And I'm just trying to make sure the disinformed understand who Heiser and Sitchin are, and why Heiser is more credible than Sitchin.

If you say so...

What makes you say that?

Can you say "slippery slope"?

No, you haven't.

Sorry, A.DIM, but the burden of proof, in what regards this Sitchin business, rests on you and Outcast.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

I must have missed it, then. Where was it that you did that?

An ad hominem is an ad hominem is an ad hominem.

How can you complain about people saying that Sitchin is a woo-woo, and then turn around and make childish attacks on my username?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.